Radha Devi A. vs Union of India and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ''CAT'' for short in original application No. 170/01278/2015. The petitioner is working as Chief Conservator of Forest was posted in Kalaburagi Division by the order dated 05.09.2015 wherein she was working as Conservator of Forest. She is transferred with immediate effect and posted as Chief Conservator of Forest (Human Resource Development) Dharwad. The fourth respondent who was working in Dharwad has been transferred to the place were the petitioner was working. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order dated 05.09.2015 was before the CAT assailing the same. The CAT while taking into consideration the rival contentions has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has already spent about nine (9) years in Kalaburagi and in that light did not find it expedient to interfere with the order impugned. The further contention of the petitioner about the children pursuing their education in Kalaburagi was also adverted to but did not impress the CAT to treat the same as a ground for interfering with the order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the transfer effected is during the middle of the academic year and as such the petitioner as well as her daughter who is pursuing MBBS Course and another daughter who is studying in seventh standard would get displaced at this point and as such the order is not sustainable. The learned counsel would also refer to the guidelines at Annexures-A3 and A4 to contend that the transfer should be effected only prior to the month of May and June of any particular year so that the officers do not find it difficult to relocate. It is also his case that, if any transfer is made deviating from the said circular the same can only be made with the approval of the Hon''ble Chief Minister. Alternatively, the learned counsel contends that keeping in view the personal difficulties of the petitioner, she be permitted to continue in the same place, at least till the end of December 2015.

Learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the fourth respondent seek to sustain the transfer order as well as the order passed by the CAT. It is contended that, it is now well established that transfer is an exigency of service depending on the requirement of the department. Depending on the requirement, the Officers could be transferred, at any point, when the need arises. It is pointed out that by the order which is impugned, the petitioner and sixteen other officers have also been transferred and if the case of the petitioner is considered, the entire postings would get dislocated. The personal difficulty of the petitioner cannot be considered at this point.

In the light of the contentions put-forth and also keeping in view the fact that the law on this point is well established that the Courts would be slow in interfering with the orders of transfer, we have examined the instant facts of the case. At the outset, a perusal of the order impugned dated 05.09.2015, would disclose that apart from the petitioner, sixteen other officers have also been transferred. The order at the outset discloses that a copy of the same has been forwarded to the office of the Hon''ble Chief Minister and the Forest Minister. A perusal of the guidelines referred to at Annexure-A3 would disclose that the postings to be made and retention of officer at a particular place for sufficiently long time and not being disturbed intermittently is with the object that continuance of Government servant in the post should be for a reasonable period so that they get real exposure to the activities of the departments.

If the said intention of the circular is kept in view, and the transfer of the petitioner in that light is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been transferred from the place where she was working within short duration. As noticed by the CAT, though in a different post, the petitioner has continued in the same location for about nine years. In that direction, even though for the present by the order impugned the transfer has been made in the middle of an academic year, the dislocation complained by the petitioner due to the education of her daughters cannot be a consideration, when the senior officers like the petitioner are being transferred from one place to another. That apart since under the said order dated 05.09.2015, when several other officers have also been transferred the grievance of the petitioner that such transfer is made without the approval of the Hon''ble Chief Minister also does not impress us. Even otherwise the guidelines cannot be treated as a bar when no malafide is established.

With regard to the contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to continue in the same place till December 2015, in a matter of the present nature wherein by the order impugned, several other officers have also been transferred and all the said officers have reported in obedience to the transfer orders and the fourth respondent who is transferred to the post where the petitioner was working is also stated to have been relieved from Dharwad where he was working and has taken charge such concession cannot be shown. However, we observe, if at all the petitioner has any personal difficulties, it would always be open for the petitioner to report at the place where she has been transferred and thereafter make appropriate representation to the competent authorities, explaining the personal difficulties in discharge of her duties at that place, which will be taken note by the authorities concerned.

In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere either with the order dated 05.09.2015 or the order passed by the CAT dated 24.09.2015.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.